On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 09:59:16AM -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>> On May 17, 2007, at 9:41 AM, Richard Cobbe wrote:
>> > I've often wanted to disable them for certain modules even "during
> > practice." When I'm running test cases and debugging, having to repeatedly
> > recompile a module with complicated structure and contract definitions is
> > slow enough to be very annoying and almost slow enough to be impractical.
>> It sounds like you're using contracts as a substitute for types
Yes, for two reasons:
1) The last time I looked into this (several months ago) Typed Scheme
wasn't yet ready to do the things I want from a type or contract
system. Perhaps it's time to revisit that decision.
2) I understand the pragmatics of using a type system. Therefore, I
understand the pragmatics of using a contract system as though it were
a type system. I don't understand the pragmatics of using a contract
system in another way.
Side issue: based on conversations with other people in the lab, I know
that I'm not the only one who doesn't really understand the pragmatics of
using contracts. Addressing this shortcoming would help significantly in
the adoption of contracts, I believe.
> and a pre-optimization experience. -- Matthias
I don't know what this means.
Richard